Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.

I started this thread as mechanism and home for the titles discussion feel free to add in your thoughts.

Okay I am going to open up by saying I don't think there is a role based on the following premis

If we assume there is a god and he made the universe lets look at how he could make the universe

1.) He creates a set of rules and logic and the world runs remotely obeying those rules. I will call this the AI version of our world.

2.) He actively participates in each and every reaction and action at every moment and step of our world. I will call this the controlled program version of our world.

There really are no other versions possible it is the same options you have as you try to program a computer game or any computer program.

Any other sort of world comes down to some sort of weird randomness and in such an world science has no part because there is no logic for science to work with.

Now if we take version 1 from above and we have a world created by GOD but running under a set of AI rules science may never understand the start point but it can study and make sense of the rules. So you don't need to discuss GOD or even consider him to work with the rules. Ultimately you make infer from the rules there must be a GOD but for the act of studying the rules you don't need to know or care if there is a GOD.

If we take version 2 from above that GOD is involved in every decision then actually he can determine whether I am supposed to pursue the science or not. So indirectly if I am pursuing the science it is his will because I really don't have any free will.

I believe most religions adopt version 1 because it gives us implicit free will version 2 tends to get a little murky.

So that is my reasoning for seperating GOD from science feel free to chime in.

Edited by Orac (10/12/1104:11 AM)

_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

The rules have always been present, either actualized or potentially, in what our friend Rev would probably call an eternal uncreated principle (God, GOD, He, She, It, or whatever tag grabs you).

In that case, not only is it irrelevant to science, it presents no scientific nor metaphysical conundrums regarding 'who' created what, how, when and why, nor about who created the creator. The prime principle just 'is', eternally, and all else 'is' because of it.

_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

The rules have always been present, either actualized or potentially, in what our friend Rev would probably call an eternal uncreated principle (God, GOD, He, She, It, or whatever tag grabs you).

In that case, not only is it irrelevant to science, it presents no scientific nor metaphysical conundrums regarding 'who' created what, how, when and why, nor about who created the creator. The prime principle just 'is', eternally, and all else 'is' because of it.

Ok so if I add that in again science is of no importance to that universe because it "is" or "isn't" at the whim of the omipotent one. So the fact we have and are doing science means he decided we should "do it".

It's like a mild variation of situation 2 infact if I rejig the wording on proposition 2 I can probably cover this.

_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

My first thought on seeing this question was that the answer was clearly an unequivocal “yes and no”. However, the more I think about it, the more sure I become that it is not as straightforward as that.

I think that one of the factors we have to consider is the definition of God inherent in the question.

If we are thinking of God as, not just the life of the cosmos, but the principle of existence, then in studying science we are studying God. Without such a God there would be no science, no scientists and nothing to study; but that is belief dependent.

On the other hand, if we are thinking of God in terms of the theological interpretation of some specific religious belief, then the situation will differ, depending on the belief system, and probably the individual interpretations of groups and individuals within that system.

But, Bill S, If we are thinking of God as the principle of existence then we are, as you point out 'belief dependent'. There would have to be the belief that there is a God-thing that is at the centre of our existence. To deny that would mean that God would not be present, as the belief in God was also absent. However, wouldn't science still be merrily tripping along, galaxies whirling, rocks stratifying, chemicals forming and science would be keeping itself busy all through the glorious chaotic cosmos? And that is exactly what happens! (In my opinion.)

As humans we are good observers, and in our everyday life we are comfortable when there are rules for conduct and behaviour, as the alternative muddle is upsetting for us. The belief in God offers us at the very least, the chance for order and comfort.

And then there is the question as to whose God is in charge. It all comes back to definition of God. Even the God of All Things requires the need for belief. Science has no such requirement. Science, as rede says, just 'is'. Now that may be a manifestation of God-- it certainly is if you believe. But if you don't believe that it is just science.

... If we are thinking of God as, not just the life of the cosmos, but the principle of existence, then in studying science we are studying God. Without such a God there would be no science, no scientists and nothing to study; but that is belief dependent.

Speaking only for myself, here is an expanded version of what I said in the philosophy thread

Quote:

I have no problem thinking of and accepting G.O.D.--physically, mentally and spiritually speaking--as the eternal and infinite here and now. And not just as a matter of blind faith, or belief.

I AM PROUDLY AGNOSTIC ABOUT MANY THINGSOf course--in the same way that I am sure no wise scientist would ever claim to know all there is to know about, even one particular science, not to mention the whole of nature--I would not dare claim that I know all there is to know about the G.O.D. principle.

But I do "know" some things, as Carl Jung put, and the opportunity to experience and know more and more is too grand a thing and too good an idea to miss--just because I have allowed myself to be a victim of my stubborn pride by wanting to do it all by myself. Sure I want to be consciously involved, but I no longer foolishly resist the abundance the Universe has to offer.

HUMAN BEINGS CAN BECOME HUMANE BEINGSIt is my opinion that, depending on the choices we, as a rational, conscious and aware human beings, make, we are free to focus on what we call the here and now and create what we call the future. Then the NOW will tend to evolve, to unfold, towards that which is good, greater than just good, opportune, orderly, desirable and delightful, whatever.

Of course, at the same time, I am free to reject the good, etc. I am free to let my life be filled with that which is garbage, ghastly, gruesome, odious, obstinate, divisive and diabolic.

=========================PS:From Wikipedia and the CBC

Rin Tin Tin: The Life and the Legend is a book by Susan Orlean, which was published in 2011 by Simon & Schuster. The first RTT was rescued from death by an animal-loving soldier in WW I. RTT's first role was that of a wolf. In the 1920's and 1930's RTT (I remember seeing some of the first movies), who could act better that many human beings, made a fortune for his owner and, more than once, saved his studio from bankruptcy and employed thousand of people. Later, "he"/"she" (offsprings) went on to TV fame.

The book is a non-fiction account of Rin Tin Tin. Blogcritics praised the depth of the book and wrote that "It was fascinating to read about the 16 million animals deployed in World War I as scouts, messengers, carriers of medical supplies, and sentries...."

Alaska Dispatch put it in its "20 new nonfiction reads for fall", calling it "a must-read book that is both an excellent piece of cultural history and a remarkable story of the animal-human bond."

DON'T WE ALL "CREATE" DOGS IN OUR OWN IMAGEIn an interview about this book, on the CBC (our public radio station) this AM, the author pointed out that during WW I, the Allies of course trained the dogs to serve their purposes and the Germans trained them to serve theirs. When, in 1933, the Nazis took power, of course they made sure that the usually gentle German Shepherd dogs became "good" Nazis.

BE AWARE! WE HAVE "DOGS" WITHIN US TO TRAINWhen I heard the story above, the thought came to me: We do the same with our gods. Sadly, we make our dogs (all pets) and our gods like us.

But the new theology does not deny that matter is sacred. Like the new approach of science itself, it simply requires that--despite the temptation to think only in terms of material dimensions--we have a new vision of what matter is and how it can be transformed, evolve into who, and what, we really are. Then we will go beyond, connect with and tune into that which is in through and beyond all material being.

Edited by Revlgking (10/13/1105:43 AM)Edit Reason: Always a good idea!

I am not sure that cleared anything up for me I am sorry Rev infact it confused the hell out of me or into me depending on your religion :-)

So basic question to start does your GOD take the

1) non meddeling view 2) involved at every level view

Or some other path

As put in the original post?

I think we have to clear that hurdle so we can understand what your GOD feels like to you in a worldly sense and what degree of free will you have and how much he controls.

This comes from the problem alot of religions have GOD everywhere and in everything but that doesn't tell us what decisions he makes (GOD ordained) and what decisions you are free to make (Human free will).

It's hard but we have to create some platform of terms so we can discuss things.

Edited by Orac (10/13/1105:42 AM)

_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

“…the central idea of modern cosmology – that it must be possible to understand the entire Universe through one ultimate Theory of Everything – is an outgrowth of belief in one God. Thus cosmology has itself become a sort of religious quest: a search for ‘God’ in the form of an equation.”

I think first that it's impossible to apply any kind of logic to God without first making a bunch of provisos. Many religious people assert that the laws of logic only exist because God created them. Think about that for a second. This "God" exists beyond logic.

God has no place as explanation in science, because it doesn't explain anything. Why is the sky blue? That's the way God made it. Why does it look like organisms evolved on Earth? That's the way God made it. It "explains" any possible observation and therefore explains nothing.

Materialism is a sine qua non for real science.

Science can study people's ideas 'about' God, because ideas of God exist in people's heads.Science can study religion, because religion exists in the collective of physical humans.

But science can't study any real supernatural phenomenon; nor even recognize their existence.

What does anyone know about God that can be shown to be knowledge rather than belief?

I think of it this way: Whether I do it or not, I feel that the fact that I will to do good, more often than not, is evidence, and knowledge, that I am conscious of what I call G.O.D. The evidence? This makes me a better person.

BTW, it should be obvious that good people do more social good than those who are not. Good science, like good religion should be working together on developing and distributing somatic things--good food, clothing and shelter--that will help us be better people. And, please make us aware of the evil that false religion and science used for evil purposes can do.

If I were not a god-conscious, moral, law-respecting, and humane human being, I would probably be an instinct-driven amoral, sub-human psycho and/or sociopath, incapable of being humane. So lock me away and look after me, for life. Other than provide jobs for the prison industry--a big one in the modern world--what good would this do for the world?

Quote:

DO YOU REMEMBER THE OLD SONG:"DOIN' WHAT COMES NATURALLY"?

Nature lovers, most of us love what we call the animal kingdom and other nature-based kingdoms. But how many think we should all go back to the "good old days" when there were no human-made laws?

John, in his letter, says that "God is love". Think about those two nouns for a moment: God (absolute good and highest value) and love (agape--the will to do good)--the stuff of religion at its best.

Both are without somatic dimensions. They cannot be analysed and measured by science in the same way we can measure things.

But does this mean that they are of no knowledge-based value?

Take that which is god-like and love-like away from society and I will guarantee that in no time we will notice and KNOW that there is a difference. There will be obvious and easily measurable differences in all that we say and do, and how we interact with one another--politically, economically and socially.

Of course there are religious hypocrites, but do those who rant against all religion and recommend irreligion as a cure for war and the like ever stop to ask themselves: What was the state of justice, morality, peace, mercy and the like before beings with a humane consciousness evolved and created religion--the grandfather and grandmother of philosophy, science and art?

Edited by Revlgking (10/15/1105:43 AM)Edit Reason: Always a good idea!

So Rev we are once again back at the argument that atheists cannot appreciate justice, morality, peace, mercy and the like(!).

There is no inherent mercy in religious belief. Indeed some religious doctrine is violent and distasteful, demanding inhumane and disgusting practices from its adherents. Those things which you are assuming god-like and love-like properties for to me seem to be describing desirable aspects of being human.

All atheists aren't hideous monsters wallowing in sin and wickedness. We just don't believe that there is a "thing" (no NOT a personification) that is called god. Not a single solitary thing or even a big huge universal thing. We have no belief in the supernatural.

So that is my reasoning for seperating GOD from science feel free to chime in.

In my opinion, we have to think of life (our existence), before we think about the role of God in science. It is the 'consciousness' that makes us different from other animals. Is 'consciousness' an evolutionary edge that we have when compared to other animals? Or is it some extra-fitting that was given solely to us?

Both science and philosophy depend on our 'consciousness'. The science part deals with 'what the world is'. The philosophical part deals with 'how we should live (behave)in this world'. In the former, we can have an answer (ultimately arrive at the truth). In the latter, we can have only opinions (cannot arrive at the truth).

Regarding science, we can (hope to) arrive at the truth logically. However, if life and consciousness have 'any connection with God', then God can interfere with our efforts to understand the truth of the physical world; ie, God will have role in science. If life and consciousness are the 'qualities of matter', then God will have no role in science. However, HE can still remain as a spectator enjoying the game.

Regarding the existence of God, we can have only opinions, and can never logically arrive at the truth. If the universe is self-consistent, then it is like God. Then those who believe in God can say, "God created the universe in his own form as his image, ie, the cosmos is a part of him". Those who do not believe in God can say, "the self consistency is a proof that God does not exist". In my opinion, both the arguments are equally logical.

Of course there are religious hypocrites, but do those who rant against all religion and recommend irreligion as a cure for war and the like ever stop to ask themselves: What was the state of justice, morality, peace, mercy and the like before beings with a humane consciousness evolved and created religion--the grandfather and grandmother of philosophy, science and art?

What is 'religion'? In my opinion, it is just a 'set of laws'. The laws have evolved with time. Initially, the laws were similar to that of the animal kingdom - first self, then one's gang (the rest are to be thrown out). Gradually the laws became all encompassing. The persons whom you call nonreligious have also their laws; so they also have religion.

One of the first things we were taught in Expert Witness Courtroom Training was that whatever question you were asked, you should turn it into an opportunity to say what you wanted to say. However, it had to be done in such a way that it could be seen as an answer to the question.

Rev, you are good at the first part of this, but you really need to polish up the second part.